CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. CA 12-01229
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

STEIGER, GARY v. LPCIMINELLI, INC.

Plaintiff Gary Steiger commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained after tripping and falling while exiting a portable toilet at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer contracted with defendant Orchard Park CCRC, the landowner, for fiber optic installation. Defendant LPCiminelli, Inc. acted as the general contractor and was responsible for placing the portable toilets. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss certain Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against LPCiminelli, Inc. based on a lack of actual notice, and fully dismissing these claims against Orchard Park CCRC. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, ruling that the accident site was not a 'passageway' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). One justice dissented regarding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site AccidentDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeSupervisory ControlPortable Toilet PlacementTrip and Fall
References
40
Case No. CV-24-1330
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Gary Troiano

Claimant Gary Troiano appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's acceptance of Troiano's medical expert's report, ruling it should be precluded for non-adherence to Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Board had also denied Troiano's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division found that the Board erred in considering the employer's argument regarding the medical report's admissibility, as the employer failed to raise this objection in a timely manner. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's July 2024 decision and remitted the matter, deeming the appeal from the denial of reconsideration academic.

Medical expert reportTimelinessPreclusion of evidenceSchedule loss of useAdministrative reviewReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionRight wrist injuryIndependent Medical Examiner
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

Donald Murphy, an NBA referee, underwent a physical examination by defendant Dr. Richard Blum and a stress test analyzed by Blum, which was found "abnormal." The results were communicated to the NBA and Murphy's personal physician. Following a a cardiac arrest that ended his career, Murphy sued Dr. Blum for medical malpractice. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no physician-patient relationship existed between Murphy and Dr. Blum because Blum was retained solely by the NBA for an examination, not for treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, upholding that a doctor engaged for examination purposes only assumes duties associated with those functions, not duties concerning treatment or expert opinions.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipDuty of CareComplaint DismissalCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewProfessional Sports InjuryPre-employment ExaminationNo Physician-Patient RelationshipAffirmation of Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ11140527
Regular
Apr 08, 2020

GARY BULLARD vs. EXCALIBUR WELL SERVICES, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior findings and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found that while Dr. Swartz's report was admissible, it did not constitute substantial evidence as it did not adequately address causation for the claimed cumulative injury. Furthermore, the Board determined that Dr. Brourman's opinion was not substantial evidence because it relied on an inaccurate understanding of the applicant's work duties, contradicting credible applicant testimony. The case is being remanded to allow parties to provide Dr. Brourman with a corrected job description and obtain a supplemental report on the cumulative injury claim.

ADJ11140527Excalibur Well ServicesInc.Travelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaGary BullardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionRulings & Orders Admitting EvidenceFindings of Fact & Opinion on DecisionAubrey Swartz
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Plaintiff Dr. Martin Roginsky filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the County of Suffolk, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Executive Law. Roginsky, a physician, was constructively discharged from his Staff Physician role at the Suffolk County Jail. He claims the termination was due to his age, citing remarks made by Dr. Gerazi, the Medical Director of the Jail, and that the County used a prescription-writing issue as a pretext. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was not Roginsky's employer and that age was not the 'but for' cause of his discharge. The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, finding that Roginsky had plausibly alleged an employment relationship with the County and satisfied the 'but for' causation standard for his ADEA claim. Consequently, the Court also decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

Spages v. Gary Null Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding a plaintiff's Labor Law claims against defendants Gary Null Associates, Inc. and Selma Weiser. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, but the appellate court modified this. The appellate decision denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing comparative negligence as a valid defense and evidence of the plaintiff's own contribution to the injury. However, the grant of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was affirmed, as comparative negligence is not a defense, and defendants failed their nondelegable duty to provide adequate scaffolding. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Selma Weiser's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Gary Null Associates, Inc., finding Null's liability to be purely statutory and not actively negligent.

Labor LawScaffolding SafetySummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceIndemnificationStatutory DutyWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction Safety
References
3
Case No. ADJ162353
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

GARY NORTH vs. AERO ELECTRIC CONNECTOR, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an interim order finding an applicant sustained industrial cumulative trauma injury to his neck and internal systems. The defendant argued the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion was not substantial evidence due to an inaccurate history and failure to review all records. The Board found the AME's opinion was based on a thorough evaluation and job duties, affirming the finding of neck injury. The defendant also challenged the reliance on Dr. David's report for internal injuries, citing issues with his appointment and unavailability for deposition; however, the Board found Dr. David's report constituted substantial evidence and that defendant waived objections to his appointment and deposition unavailability by failing to raise them timely.

Cumulative traumaAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 5701Regular physicianPetition for reconsiderationIndustrial injuryWCJDRE Cervical Category IIWhole Person Impairment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,453 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational